A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On November 28, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with labor due to interference with business by the Suwon Friwon, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Suwon Nriwon detention house on April 2, 2014.

On March 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that, around 08:40 on March 20, 2015, the water source detention house located in the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and (b) the 8th 2nd 2nd 1st 2st 8th 2st 2nd 8th 2nd 3st 3st 3st 201, the entrance was opened to the Defendant for a sound in the door to the said detention house D, the school level E, and the school level F; and (b) the Defendant was not required to have the door up

C ch bitchch fluor

“In order to identify the circumstances,” the F would be accompanied by the work room to the workplace.

The Defendant, before the employee’s office, on the ground that the F officer’s name and the prisoner’s number was stated, asked to see whether the F officer’s name;

The purpose of this article is to “I am to get you to am,” “I am to am to am to am,” and the chest of the above correctional officer who restrains this, so that I interfere with the legitimate execution of duties of the above correctional officer in relation to the health and management of prisoners.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F, G, and H;

1. Written self-polices of I and J;

1. Each work report of the F and E;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of inquiry statements, investigation reports, and statutes, such as criminal history;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Reasons for the sentencing of Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area [6 months to 1 year and 4 months] of the first category (Interference with the performance of official duties and coercion of duties] [Decision of sentencing] [Judgment of sentencing] the Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period not exceeding one year after the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for interference with his/her duties and the execution of the sentence was completed. The Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period not exceeding one year after he/she was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to interference with his/her duties, without any special reason, by taking time to a correctional officer in charge of the administration of the curriculum and obstructing the performance of his/her duties by assaulting him/her